Climate & Energy

U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions increased 1.6 percent in 2007, according to the Energy Information Administration. Factors at fault, according to the EIA: wacky weather that increased the need for heating and cooling, and “a higher carbon …

The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee held a hearing this morning on the economic effects of global climate change legislation, and as expected, it was largely devoted to stoking fears about the potential costs …

In entirely expected news, green groups have sued over the Interior Department’s listing of the polar bear as a threatened species — or, more accurately, over Interior’s caveats that the listing not be used as …

The Columbia Journalism Review recently held a roundtable on climate journalism: There were three journalists: Andrew Revkin, the New York Times’s lead climate reporter/blogger; Bill Blakemore, who has spearheaded climate coverage at ABC News for …

Scandinavian airline SAS has found a viable way to cut down on greenhouse-gas emissions and fuel costs: fly slower. The airline has been testing slower speeds since early 2006, and says it has saved some …

I frequently read about perceived (or alleged) disagreements between the environmental community and the auto industry. A few of them are real disagreements over policy, many are practical disagreements over how best to achieve common goals, but many perceived disagreements are not, in fact, disagreements at all. For instance, some people believe the auto industry stands in the way of higher average fuel efficiency in the U.S. That's just not the case, which I'll explain in a moment. First, an area of agreement: in his New York Times column, Paul Krugman writes about fuel efficiency and our automotive future:

Chris Hayes emphasizes the difference between, in Grover Norquist’s terms, "intensity and preference" — issues that people vote on vs. ones they merely respond to favorably in polls. He thinks it’s dumb that many Dems …

It takes effort to suit up in the quasi-business/academic garb of the professional environmentalist and enter the lion's den of DC politics or the state houses. Our beliefs are so fundamentally at odds with the very fabric of civic life that it requires an effort of will, particularly in the early years, not to scream bloody murder and run for the door. Over decades, layers of accommodation and polite behavior have built up by accretion, while our rough edges have been worn down. The net result is a worldview -- we may call it the "Climate Policy Paradigm" -- that is so universally accepted that it goes unnoticed, yet its power is so great that we have abandoned the precautionary principle, environmentalism's central guide for action, with barely a murmur when the two came in conflict. Two hundred people turned out to hear Ross Gelbspan speak at the Jamaica Plain Forum a couple months ago. He gave us an hour of unvarnished truth, summarized recent climate science, and drove home the reality that nothing short of immediate, transformative, global action is sufficient. Climate campaign staff followed up at a "Global Warming Café," presenting our standard three-part story: first, we can turn things around, indeed we are already starting to do so; second, sound energy policy is good for America, because it will reduce dependence on foreign oil and create green jobs; and third, there are two things individuals can do: urge members of Congress to support emissions reduction bills and reduce our own carbon footprints. The audience joined in small group discussions, contributing their own tips on mulching and insulating hot water pipes, but the disparity between the terrible picture Ross painted and the flimsy action activists were invited to take left a palpable pall in the auditorium.